R.N.MISRA, J. - (1.)THE Sales Tax Tribunal has stated this case and referred the following question for opinion of the court under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (briefly referred to as the "act" hereinafter), on an application made by the State of Orissa :
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, was right in holding that the Sales Tax Officer, Puri I Circle, has (sic) jurisdiction to assess the assessee in respect of sales made to various offices situated in other circles ?"

(2.)THE period of assessment is 1966-67. The assessee is a registered dealer in Puri I Circle and has been assigned Registration Number 489 and carries on business in sanitary-wares, plumbing materials, G. I. pipes, tubewells and its accessories, agricultural implements, scientific instruments and all kinds of glass bottles and corks. Originally, returns had been filed as required under section 11 (1) of the Act on 30th August, 1966, for the quarter ending with 30th June, 1966, and on 13th May, 1967, for the quarter ending with 31st March, 1967. Revised returns were, however, filed for those quarters on 29th January, 1968. The assessing officer did not accept the revised returns as not being in accordance with law, inasmuch as those were filed beyond three months from the due dates and proceeded to complete the assessments on the basis of the original returns and materials collected by him during the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer found that the assessee has been supplying goods to various institutions of the Government throughout the State, such as the Executive Engineer, Public Health Divisions I and II at Bhubaneswar, Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Cuttack, Executive Engineers at Sambalpur, Baripada, Rourkela, etc. The accounts were rejected and the assessing officer made an assessment according to his best of judgment under section 12 (4) of the Act by adopting an estimate of all the sales within the State of Orissa.
In appeal, only one ground was pressed, namely, levy of interest amounting to Rs. 462. 24 raised by the assessing officer under section 12 (4-a) of the Act was not justified, but the contention was repelled. In second appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the Sales Tax Officer, Puri I Circle, had no jurisdiction to assess sales tax in respect of the turnover relating to transactions beyond his circle. The Tribunal after dealing with the contention at some length came to hold :

". . . . . . . . . . . . Therefore, the Sales Tax Officer, Puri I Circle, cannot arrogate to himself jurisdiction to assess him in respect of the turnover in other circles. When there is no notification by the Commissioner conferring concurrent jurisdiction, the fact of non-payment of tax in other circles would not confer jurisdiction on the Sales Tax Officer, Puri I Circle, to assess him. He cannot arrogate to himself the jurisdiction not conferred on him by law. The assessment is, therefore, without jurisdiction and so invalid. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the assessment is reduced to the returned figure, that is, as per the revised return of the dealer. "

(3.)THOUGH it is not clear from the various orders, it has been conceded before us by counsel for both sides that in the original returns for the two quarters, the assessee had shown some sales made beyond the jurisdiction of Puri Circle. In the revised returns, the assessee excluded those sales and confined the returns to sales made within Puri I Circle though the revised returns in both the quarters were for higher amounts than the figures disclosed in the original returns. Obviously in the original returns, the entire transactions even in regard to Puri I Circle had not been properly disclosed.